The court refused to dismiss the case involving a bribe paid to a Kyiv judge
The Shevchenkivskyi District Court of Kyiv refused to dismiss the case against Alla Zinevich (Prygunova), a judge of the Kyiv Commercial Court, who had requested to be acquitted due to the statute of limitations in a case involving an alleged bribe. At the same time, the court decided to close the proceedings against one of the lawyers in the same case.
A high-profile case regarding alleged bribery in the judicial system is ongoing in Kyiv; the case dates back to the events of 2014–2015 and has now returned to the spotlight due to an attempt to close the proceedings on the grounds of the statute of limitations. Judge Alla Zinevich insisted that the case should be closed, but the court did not agree with this approach, leaving the proceedings against her open.
According to the investigation, the case involves episodes related to the alleged transfer of funds through a lawyer: the amount in question was $7,000 for one court decision and another $22,000 in a separate episode involving property disputes and land. The investigation has been examining these episodes in court since 2017, and the case has been repeatedly complicated by procedural disputes and attempts to change jurisdiction.
In May 2026, two defendants simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing the fact that more than ten years had passed since the events in question. The defense insisted that the statute of limitations had already expired and, therefore, criminal liability should be terminated. One of the attorneys acknowledged that he understood the legal consequences of such a dismissal and that it did not imply rehabilitation.
Judge Zinevich, for her part, stated that she did not admit guilt and considered the prosecution’s arguments to be incorrect, particularly regarding the interpretation of Supreme Court precedent. She also emphasized that the court should not find guilt when dismissing a case due to the statute of limitations, as this can only be done through a conviction.
In its decision, the court explained that closing a case due to the statute of limitations does not mean the person is acquitted, but merely establishes that prosecution is no longer possible after a certain period of time. It was also emphasized that such a procedure does not constitute rehabilitation and may have consequences, including restrictions on holding certain positions in the future. Separately, the court considered the case of another individual involved—a lawyer who did not object to the dismissal of the proceedings. In his case, the court decided to dismiss the case, but left open the issue of the funds seized during the search, as there were disputes regarding their origin and ownership.
This involves over $22,000, which was found in the office and divided into envelopes with markings. According to the case materials, during the search, various individuals made conflicting claims of ownership over this money, and some of the bills bore traces of special markings. For this reason, the court decided not to return the funds until the circumstances are fully clarified.
Zinevich herself had previously claimed that the criminal proceedings against her may have been fabricated, and in 2017, she was temporarily suspended from judicial duties. Later, the European Court of Human Rights found violations in the suspension procedure and awarded compensation. The case is currently ongoing, and the trial regarding the key charges has not been concluded. This is reported by .
Shots were fired in Cherkasy Oblast during a conflict between company employees and the TCC
A surge of emotions, an unpredictable reaction, and the ever-present human factor—these were the terms used by Colonel Serhiy Markin, head of the Kharkiv Regional TSK and the Special Operations Unit, during his testimony at a meeting of the Temporary Investigation Commission (TSK).
